International Intellectual Property Rights Regarding Plants Native To India:

Texmati = Basmati?

© Frederic M. Douglas, April 1999; 2010. All Rights Reserved.

By Frederic M. Douglas, Esq.

fdouglas@cox.net

I. Introduction

In the age of global markets and the resulting development

of international intellectual property rights, conflicts arise

between industrialized nations seeking to develop new products

from plants, and developing nations seeking to capitalize on

their indigenous flora. One example is the conflict over basmati

rice. Long identified as originating in the Indian sub-

continent, basmati rice is prized for its distinctive aroma,

flavor, and long, slender, fluffy grains. The connection between

India and basmati seemed threatened when the United States

("U.S.") patented Texmati, described as an American basmati rice.

The Indian government seeks to have the U.S. revoke the patent as

part of its plan to protect its rice industry. This article

explores this situation with an eye towards understanding what

rights the patent provides Texmati and how it affects, if at all,

India's rice industry.

II. Intellectual Property

A. Patents

1
 A patent for an invention is a grant of a property right by

the government to the inventor.1 The patent term is twenty years

from the date on which the patent application was filed in the

U.S.2 The right granted by the U.S. patent extends only

throughout the U.S. and its territories and possessions.3

The patent rights are, in the language of the statute, “the

right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or

selling” the invention in the U.S. or “importing” the invention

into the U.S.4 What is granted is not the right to make, use,

offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others

from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the

invention.5

B. Trademark

A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or

any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce.6 The

trademark identifies and distinguishes the goods of one

manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by

others.7 In short, a trademark is a brand name.8

A certification mark is any word, name, symbol, device, or

any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce with

the owner’s permission by someone other than its owner. The

certification mark certifies regional or other geographic origin,

material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other

characteristics of someone's goods or services. A certification

2
mark can also demonstrate that the labor on the goods or services

was performed by members of a union or other organization.9

A collective mark is a trademark or service mark used, or

intended to be used, in commerce, by the members of a

cooperative, an association, or other collective group or

organization, including a mark which indicates membership in a

union, an association, or other organization.10

C. Plant Variety Protection

The Plant Variety Protection Act11 (PVPA), enacted in

December of 1970, and amended in 1994, provides legal protection,

similar to patents. The right holders are breeders of new plant

varieties which are sexually reproduced (by seed) or are tuber-

propagated. Bacteria and fungi are excluded. The United States

Department of Agriculture ("USDA") administers the PVPA.12

A Certificate of Protection is awarded to a breeder if the

USDA agrees that the plant variety is new, distinct from other

varieties, genetically uniform, and stable through successive

generations. The certificate is valid for twenty years for most

crops and 25 years for trees, shrubs, and vines. The breeder has

exclusive rights to multiply and market the variety's seed.

The owner must prove the distinctness, uniformity, and

stability of the new variety. The applicant may: list the single

variety he or she believes is the one most similar to the new

variety and describe how the new variety differs from it; list a

group of varieties to which the new variety is similar, and

3
describe how it differs from that group; or, describe how the

variety differs from all other known varieties. A statement of

uniformity must report the level of variability in any

characteristic of the variety.

The PVP Office maintains databases for crops of both public

and private varieties. The plant variety examiner uses these and

other sources to determine which, if any, varieties are

indistinguishable from the new one. If the examiner finds

varieties which appear to be indistinguishable from the

application variety, the applicant will be notified that

supplemental data are necessary. To obtain additional data,

applicants may use DNA profiling or other analyses to show

distinctness. The USDA does not perform tests to confirm a

variety's distinctness.

III. International Trade Agreements

A. World Trade Organization ("WTO") and General Agreement

on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT")

The GATT is an international agreement that sets the rules

for conducting international trade in goods only.13 The WTO is

an international organization that incorporates the GATT. The

WTO updates the agreement to include services and intellectual

property.14

B. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs)

The WTO's TRIPs Agreement is an attempt to harmonize

intellectual property rights globally and provide a dispute

4
settlement system.15 TRIPs covers copyrights, trademarks,

patents, integrated circuit designs, trade secrets, industrial

designs, and geographic indications.16

WTO member countries may refuse a patent for an invention if

its commercial exploitation is prohibited for reasons of public

order or morality.17 A country may also exclude plants and

animals (except microorganisms), and biological processes for

producing plants or animals (except microbiological processes).18

However, if the country does not allow plant patents, the country

must provide some protection.19 One permitted alternative is

providing plant breeder's rights20 under the International Union

for the Protection for New Varieties of Plants ("UPOV").21 If a

country did not protect plants before 1 January 1995, it may

delay plant protection until 1 January 2005.22

Articles 22 to 24 of TRIPs refer to protection of indicators

of geographic origin.23 This portion of TRIPs protects

geographic indications which identify a product as originating

from a member-state where a reputation is attached to that

geographic origin.24 Member-states may pursue legal recourse to

discontinue the use of misleading geographic indications.

C. Provisions For Developing Nations

TRIPs includes special transitional provisions for the

introductory period of TRIPs.25 Normally, members' laws and

procedures needed to comply with TRIPs by 1 January 1996.26

Developing countries have until 1 January 2000 to adopt the TRIPs

5
provisions.27 The least developed countries have until 1 January

2006 to comply with TRIPs.28

D. The International Union for the Protection of New

Varieties of Plants -- UPOV

The UPOV is an intergovernmental organization based in

Geneva, Switzerland.29 Its purpose is to accord exclusive

property rights to plant breeders in nations that are members of

the UPOV convention.30 A plant variety may receive protection if

the variety is distinct from commonly known varieties, uniform,

stable, and novel.31 The plant variety must not have been

commercially used before certain dates measured from the

application date.32

Plant breeders in one UPOV member nation may obtain

protection in other UPOV member nations.33 Plant breeders in

non-member nations cannot use the UPOV convention to protect a

plant variety. India is not a member-state of this agreement.

Researchers are not prohibited from using protected plant

varieties for research, including the use of the plant variety to

breed new varieties.34

IV. Commercial Exploitation of Plants and Plant Products

India has a long history of using herbal products for

medicinal or cosmetic purposes.35 However, India has not

attempted to seek commercial gain from this knowledge until

recently. Some Indians believe that U.S. companies are seeking

to exploit Indian knowledge of plant uses.

6
 A. Neem -- Natural Pesticide

Indian farmers have used neem, a plant native to India, as a

pesticide for hundreds of years.36 The farmers boil the seeds,

and then let them soak overnight.37 The resulting foam is

removed and used to kill insects.38

Once obscure, the neem tree is now the focus of global

commercial and scientific attention.39 India's Neem Foundation40

promotes the neem tree as a wonder plant that provides: a natural

pesticide;41 medicine for skin disorders, pain, fever, and

infection;42 firewood;43 birth control;44 and a device to protect

the Taj Mahal from environmental damage.45 The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency approves various neem-based

pesticides.46

Agridyne Technologies of Columbia, Maryland markets a

product, "DAZA,"47 manufactured in a manner similar to the Indian

farmers' method.48

Environmentalists attempted to convince the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office ("USPTO") to cancel Agridyne’s patent for DAZA

based on a lack of novelty.49 The USPTO refused the request to

cancel the patent because the challenge offered little well-

documented evidence.50 Agridyne also claimed that it developed a

method to make neem's active pesticide ingredient last longer

than the normal two week period.51 The European Patent Office

determined that the neem patent was included in prior art.52

7
 B. Turmeric -- Yellow Spice With Pharmaceutical Uses

In 1995, two U.S. scientists,53 employed by the University

of Mississippi Medical Center, obtained a patent for the use of

turmeric to help wounds to heal.54 The USPTO canceled the patent

in 1997 after a re-examination determined that the patent

application did not satisfy the novelty criterion.55 The

challenge to Agridyne's patent was led by India's Council of

Scientific and Industrial Research ("CSIR").56 The CSIR filed a

petition, through a U.S. legal firm,57 stating that turmeric was

used to heal wounds for hundreds of years.58 The CSIR supported

the petition with 32 published papers.59 The CSIR compared the

successful petition to cancel the turmeric patent with the failed

attempt in the neem situation.60 The CSIR's director general,

R.A. Mashelkar, said that Indians have nothing to fear in

protecting a traditional knowledge base when a patent challenge

is well argued and well supported.61

C. A Successful Compromise

A conflict exists between plant variety rights protection

and biodiversity protection.62 Biodiversity advocates believe

that drug companies cannot take a country's genetic resources

without compensation.63 Some see this clash of plant breeder

rights and biodiversity rights as incompatible.64

However, this conflict was resolved in Thrivanthpuram,

India over a herbal preparation from a medicinal plant,

Trichopuszeylamicsu.65 This plant has been used by the Kani

8
people in India, for many years, to treat fatigue.66 The

Tropical Botanical & Garden Research Institute ("Institute")

found that the plant had properties that enhance the human

body's immune system.67

Not wanting to wait the lengthy time to obtain an Indian

process patent on the medicine, the Institute sought out the Kani

people.68 They negotiated a license to manufacture the medicine

from the Trichopuszeylamicsu plant.69 The Institute then sold

its rights to a drug company for a sum plus a royalty for the

following seven years.70 The Institute put fifty percent of the

proceeds in a fund for the Kani tribe's welfare.71 This

agreement led to a compromise that ensured that the Kani people

were satisfied and private plant breeder rights were awarded.72

D. Rice

In the U.S., most people eat and enjoy rice

occasionally. In many parts of the world, rice is the chief food

of millions of people.73 Indeed, in many countries, the word for

rice is also used as the word for meals or food in general.74

Some sources believe that the cultivation of rice started in

India.75 One fact that supports this statement is that the

Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers in eastern India overflow each

spring, providing rice paddies with necessary water.76 Also,

archaeological evidence suggests that an advanced system of rice

cultivation existed in China and India 7,000 years ago.77

E. U.S. Rice Industry

9
 The U.S. is a major producer and exporter of rice.78 Rice is

grown in the U.S. mostly in Texas, Louisiana, California, and

Arkansas. Many consider the U.S. to have the highest quality

rice in the world.79

F. Basmati Rice -- Anything Else Is Just Rice

Basmati rice, unlike usual types of rice, is aromatic and

has an extra long grain.80 The aroma is described as nut-like or

reminiscent of popcorn. Basmati rice is usually consumed only on

special occasions.81 Basmati rice is indigenous to India and

Pakistan.82 In India alone, at least 400 varieties exist.83 B

Basmati rice comprises four per cent of India's export

earnings.84 India earns US$800 million annually from basmati

rice exports. Ten percent of these basmati exports are consumed

in the U.S.85

In world markets Indian basmati rice is the most expensive

rice available.86 In Europe the best U.S. rice fetches a price

of US$50087 per metric ton.88 Indian basmati goes for US$1200 per

metric ton.89 The European Union gives Indian basmati rice a

duty discount of US$300 per metric ton.90 Soon the European

Union may cease giving Indian basmati rice a duty discount.91 In

this event, perhaps European consumers will choose quality U.S.

rice from companies like Uncle Ben's over Indian basmati rice.92

V. RiceTec and Basmati Patent

RiceTec, an international corporation, produces "Texmati"

rice which RiceTec calls an "American basmati." Texmati is a

10
hybrid of aromatic rice and regular long grain rice,93 sold by

RiceTec since 1977.94 As the name suggests, this variety of rice

grows in Texas.

The USPTO granted patent No. 5,663,484 to RiceTec95 for its

variety of basmati.96 The patent also protected the American

basmati plant and RiceTec's method of breeding the plant.

Specifically, one aspect of the invention relates to novel

rice lines whose plants are semi-dwarf in stature, substantially

insensitive to poor sunlight conditions, and high yielding. The

patent claims that the plant produces rice grains having

characteristics similar or superior to those of good quality

basmati rice. Another patent claim relates to a "starch index”

of a rice grain that predicts the grain's cooking properties.

The patent also describes a method based on the starch index for

identifying grains that can be cooked to the firmness of

traditional basmati rice, and to use this method to select

desirable segregants in rice breeding. Although RiceTec has not

filed for an Indian patent on its basmati, the company has

successfully patented three different methods of milling rice.97

RiceTec also filed an application under the UPOV 1995 Plant

Varieties Protection Act for its basmati lines.98

VI. Indian Intellectual Property Rights

A. Indian Patents

India's Patent Act differs in certain aspects from the U.S.

Patent Act. India does not permit patents for inventions

11
regarding food, but does allow patents for food manufacturing

processes.99 The food manufacturing patent term is only for five

to seven years while other inventions may be patented for

fourteen years.100 Agricultural techniques or methods are not

patentable.101 If RiceTec were to seek an Indian patent for

Texmati, its protection would be limited, if not denied.

Furthermore, for all patentable inventions, the Indian government

may revoke a patent on public interest grounds.102

Indian patent offices are known to be inefficient, averaging

six years to issue a patent.103 Although the USPTO is also

inefficient, U.S. patents are usually issued in no more than two

years.104 If Indian patents are issued many years after

application, the scientist may find it too late to capitalize on

the invention.105

B. Indian Geographic Indications

India does not have a Geographic Indication Act, which is

part of the WTO agreement.106 The Indian government currently

seeks to define "basmati" as a geographic term for a part of the

Indian sub-continent. The government claims to have records that

prove that "basmati" has been used to denote quality in India a

century ago.

VII. India's Efforts To Have USPTO Rescind RiceTec's Patent

India levies a tax on basmati rice to support the country's

"Basmati Development Fund."107 Indian basmati rice farmers pay 50

12
rupees per ton into this fund.108 The government will use the tax

to support India's efforts to overturn the U.S. patent.109

India currently seeks to convince the USPTO to withdraw

RiceTec's patent for basmati rice.110 The Indian Agricultural

Research Institute seeks DNA fingerprinting to determine the

origin of the germ plasm RiceTec used to develop American

basmati.111 If the Research Institute establishes that the

American basmati comes from original Indian lines, the Indian

government will claim that the USPTO should revoke the rice

patent for lack of novelty.

The Indian government's Technology Information Forecasting

and Assessment Council ("TIFAC") believes that it has evidence to

counter one of RiceTec's patent claims for its basmati rice.112

The patent claims a novel process for preparing translucent rice.

TIFAC says that the Indian Patent Office granted a 1986 patent

for such a process.113 TIFAC hopes to have the USPTO revoke

RiceTec's claim for this process along with the other patent

claims.

VIII. Third Country Efforts

RiceTec has registered the "Texmati" trademark in the U.S.,

Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Ireland, and other countries.114 Saudi

Arabia, India's biggest market for basmati rice,115 limits the

term, "basmati," to rice from India or Pakistan. However, Saudi

Arabian rice importers believe that the quality of Indian basmati

rice has deteriorated. In response, the Saudi Arabian government

13
has enforced several phytosanitary specifications for every

shipment imported from India.116

The United Kingdom ("U.K.") has a code of practice to define

"basmati" as from India and Pakistan.117 The U.K. government

refused RiceTec's application to trademark "Texmati." India's

Agricultural and Processed Food Export Development Authority won

a lawsuit in Greece over RiceTec's use of the "Texmati" name.118

Recently, businesses worldwide are using the term,

"basmati," or words derived from "basmati," in trade. This

practice occurs even for products not related to rice. Companies

use trademarks containing "basmati" in many countries, including

Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Jordan, Kuwait, South Africa, Spain,

Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates ("UAE").119

Companies in France, Greece, Taiwan, Jordan, Spain, and Turkey

use trademarks including "basmati" for rice that does not come

from the Indian sub-continent.120 France registered two

trademarks that use the term, "basmati," for a French company's

long-grain aromatic rice.121 India filed a protest at the French

trademark office over these trademarks.122 One Thai company sells

a "Basmalli" rice.123 In Mexico a business seeks to sell

vegetables under the basmati name.124

Ironically, a corporation from the world's largest exporter

of basmati rice, Pakistan, used "Guard Supreme Basmati" for an

assortment of foods.125 The corporation changed the trademark

after pressure from India's Basmati Development Fund.126 The

14
Basmati Development Fund is actively involved in opposing the

other trademarks.127

IX. Possible Methods To Protect Indian Rice Industry

India may safely grant product patents for Western

inventions if India speeds up efforts to patent Indian

products.128 What India needs to protect its indigenous plant

knowledge is a combination of "scientific mumbo-jumbo and legal

savvy."129 The CSIR formed a team that identified 400 herbs with

medicinal uses.130 Now the CSIR plans to seek patents for these

cures to prevent foreign companies from claiming these

remedies.131

A. Pursue Cancellation of U.S. Patent

The PTO seldom fully cancels a patent once granted.132

However, the USPTO may cancel a patent for a limited period after

issuing the patent.133 If a patented invention is shown to not be

novel, useful, or obvious, then the PTO may cancel the patent.134

For RiceTec's basmati patent, India's best point of attack

is novelty. DNA fingerprinting may determine whether RiceTec's

rice germ plasm originates from a naturally occurring rice.135 If

so, then India could argue that RiceTec's rice contains no

substantial differences from a naturally occurring variety,

negating the rice's novelty. RiceTec maintains that their

patented rice's breeding material came partly from an

agricultural seed repository in Idaho that is available to

anyone.136

15
 If the rice provides no substantial benefits over natural

basmati, India may attack the patented rice's usefulness.

RiceTec's patent describes the plant as being cultivated in only

the Americas and the Caribbean. RiceTec may seek to counter

India's claim of a lack of utility. RiceTec could state that the

company's rice plant is useful because it grows in a region that

does not naturally allow basmati rice to grow.

Indian government officials and rice industry

representatives have publicly stated that growers cannot

cultivate basmati rice outside of the northern region of the

Indian subcontinent. Similar statements have expressed that

RiceTec's rice is the same type of rice grown in India for many

years. The Indian government should decide on whether RiceTec's

rice is the same as Indian basmati or different. If the patent

rice is identical to Indian basmati, then RiceTec's invention is

not novel. If the rice is not the same, then India may lose a

contest on novelty, but may consider geographic indication

protection.

B. Plant Breeder Rights

India currently provides no protection for plant varieties.

TRIPs only provides plant variety dispute settlement to countries

that have national plant variety protection. The Indian

parliament unsuccessfully attempted to pass a plant variety

protection law in 1994. If India adopts a plant variety patent

16
law soon, India may pursue international protection of indigenous

plants.

However, any protection will only pertain to future acts as

TRIPs will not apply plant variety protection retroactively.

India cannot use TRIPs to contest foreign plant patents if India

does not provide plant variety protection at home. Previous

Indian governments did not pass a plant protection act, despite

urging by Indian professionals in the environmental, food, and

patent fields.137 If such an Indian plant patent system existed,

India would have an easier task of protecting its basmati rice

industry today.

Although this avenue is currently ineffective to thwart

RiceTec's patent, passing a plant patent act now will be valuable

for future disputes. The TRIPs agreement requires that any laws

on biodiversity, plant, and microorganism protection be in place

before 2000.138 India has not yet begun enacting such

legislation.139

C. Trademark, Certified Mark, Co-op Mark

RiceTec has a registered U.S. trademark for "Texmati." The

trademark registration claims that RiceTec has used "Texmati" for

the previous twenty years. If India cannot refute this

statement, passing off is hard to prove.

Again, TRIPs provides no dispute resolution process if a

member country does not have a conflicting trademark under its

own laws. No Indian trademark exists for "basmati."140 RiceTec

17
does not have a registered trademark of "basmati" anywhere. In

the U.S., the word, "basmati," is not registered alone, although

other companies have registrations for phrases containing the

term. These registrations contain disclaimers that no claim is

asserted to the word, "basmati." India needs to consider whether

"basmati" should be trademarked in India first, then in other

countries.

If India is unsuccessful in pursuing trademark protection,

certified marks or collective marks may be worth considering. A

certified mark may indicate to consumers that the rice was grown

in the Himalayan region of India, as Columbia's coffee growers

demonstrate through their Juan Valdez marketing promotion.

Perhaps India's rice exporting organizations should pursue

creation of a collective mark to distinguish rice from India's

rice growers.

D. Marketing

Perhaps Indian basmati's greatest disadvantage to American

basmati is poor marketing by the Indian rice industry. Today,

the two basmatis do not compete directly in the U.S. Currently

U.S. supermarkets usually do not stock the Indian product.141

Normally, Indian basmati sells only in large bags in specialty

markets.142 Specialty markets do not sell the American basmati.

Hopefully, improved marketing can allow Indian basmati to

prevail over American basmati. India may benefit by aggressively

competing directly with Texmati and other American basmatis.143

18
If store shelves stocked Indian and American basmatis side-by-

side, consumers may choose the Indian variety. Informal taste

comparisons seem to show that Texmati's flavor and aroma is

inferior to the Indian variety. Indeed, one culinary expert

described Texmati rice as being starchier and having less aroma

than Indian basmati rice.144 The Indian basmati rice was more

fragrant and saliently superior to the Texmati rice.145 This

important distinction, along with Indian rice being generally

less expensive, in the U.S., than U.S. rice,146 should enable

India to increase revenue while diminishing RiceTec's market

share.

A recent technological development by the Indian

Agricultural Research Institute may increase India's basmati rice

production.147 This development, India's first hybrid basmati

rice, may give a higher yield than any current Indian basmati

rice.148 If India's new basmati rice successfully competes with

RiceTec's Texmati, then India's exploitation of biotechnology

could increase the Indian rice industry's profits. If this

Indian hybrid is indeed superior to other basmatis, the Indian

government can help the Indian rice industry by passing the

appropriate patent legislation and pursuing international

intellectual property protection for this hybrid rice.

However, bioengineering of food products does not always

spell success in the marketplace. For example, U.S. tomato

growers breed varieties of tomatoes that resist damage when

19
hauled in trucks, stay fresh for longer time periods, and even

have a square shape to improve the packing arrangement in cans.

However, these significant improvements result in a dramatic loss

of flavor.

India markets a high-yielding disease-resistant basmati rice

variety, "Pusa No. 1," that is not as fragrant or flavorful as

traditional Indian basmati rice.149 Indian basmati rice commands

a high price for its delicious traditional flavor.150 In the

eighties Pakistan introduced high-yielding varieties to improve

productivity.151 Some believe that the Pakistani rice industry

currently receives a lower price for its basmati rice because

Indian basmati rice is perceived as a higher quality basmati

rice.152 Fearing a similar fate, Indian basmati exporters hope

that the Indian government designates rices like Pusa No. 1 as

"basmati-parentaged" instead of "basmati."153 They hope that this

will help consumers to not become confused by lower quality

basmati-like rice.154

Even India's food and commerce ministries refuse to

recognize Pusa No. 1 as basmati rice.155 Perhaps the Indian

government should also seek to have foreign governments to

classify RiceTec's Texmati and similar rices as basmati-

parentaged. Such a description may assist consumers in

identifying Indian rices and Indian-style rices.

E. Do Nothing

20
 If India were to do nothing regarding RiceTec's patent,

India's basmati market may suffer little, if any, damage.

RiceTec's U.S. patent provides no advantage over Indian growers.

U.S. patent laws do not apply to India.156

A patent does not grant the patentee the right to use an

invention. A patent merely grants the right to exclude others

from using the invention for twenty years. If India successfully

convinces the PTO to cancel RiceTec's patent, RiceTec would still

be free to use the rice as no other patent exists to be

infringed. Canceling the patent only allows anyone to use the

rice. Also, India still can continue to sell its basmati

worldwide, whether the USPTO cancels the patent or not.

X. Suggested Future Efforts

* Develop home country protection for trademarks, plant

variety protection, and geographic indication to take advantage

of international agreements.

* Build computer databases to document and protect Indian

plants and plant products.

* Employ Indian embassies to monitor patents, trademarks,

and other intellectual property rights in foreign countries.

21
 * Follow Malaysia's practice of conducting research and

collecting information on traditional Malay medicinal plants with

the intention of patenting them for commercial purposes.157

XI. Conclusion

Initially, RiceTec's patent seems to misappropriate India's

national heritage in basmati rice. However, after learning about

the myriad intellectual property schemes, the extent of the

Texmati patent rights seems limited. As a practical matter

quality Indian basmati rice is still superior to Texmati. It is

incumbent upon the Indian rice industry to aggressively ensure

that this message reaches the consumer. Concerted efforts

between Indian business and government can effectively promote

the use of India's large pool of scientific manpower to protect

indigenous plants from exclusively foreign exploitation. This

technologically-endowed work force provides potential for India

to profit from improved intellectual property protection.

22
1
Web site of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatispa.htm, accessed March 7, 1999.
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
35 U.S.C. § 101 (1994).
5
U.S. P.T.O. web site.
6
Id. at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineTrademark accessed March 7, 1999.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id. at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineCertMark accessed March 7, 1999.
10
Id. at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineCollMark accessed March 7, 1999.
11
7 U.S.C. 2321-2331, 2351-2357, 2371-2372, 2401-2404, 2421-2427, 2441-2443, 2461-2463; 2481-2486,
2501-2504, 2531-2532, 2541-2545, 2561-2570, 2581-2583 (1994).
12
Website of USDA, http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pvp.htm accessed March 14, 1999.
13
Website of WTO, http://www.wto.org/about/facts6.htm accessed April 12, 1999.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
"UPOV" is the customary abbreviation based on the initials of its name in French: Union pour la
Protection des Obtentions Végétales. See website of the UPOV, http://www.upov.int/eng/upov/union.htm
accessed April 12, 1999.
22
Website of WTO.
23
Business Line, Feb. 20, 1998, Section: Business.
24
Id.
25
Website of WTO.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Website of UPOV, http://www.upov.int/eng/brief.htm, accessed May 5, 1999.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Part 3 Asia-Pacific, Aug. 27, 1997, Source: All-India Radio.
36
New Scientist, Feb. 8, 1997, p. 11.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Compass Newswire, Jun. 16, 1997, Section: In the News, "Neem Trees Set To Save Taj Mahal."
40
The Neem Foundation is based in Bombay, India. Compass Newswire, Jun. 16, 1997, Section: In the
News, "Neem Trees Set To Save Taj Mahal."
41
New Scientist, Feb. 8, 1997, p. 11.
42
The Tampa Tribune, Mar. 29, 1997, Section: Home and Garden, p. 1.
43
Id.
44
Bangor Daily News (Bangor, Maine), Dec. 5, 1997, "'Miracle tree' has promise."
45
Compass Newswire, Jun. 16, 1997.
46
The Tampa Tribune, Mar. 29, 1997, Section: Home and Garden, p. 1.
47
dihydro-azadirachtin
48
New Scientist, Feb. 8, 1997, p. 11.
49
Journal of Commerce (India), Aug. 26, 1997, Section: World Trade, p. 3A.

23
50
Id.
51
India Today, Sep. 8, 1997, Section: Science, p. 56.
52
Business Line, Oct. 30, 1997, p. 3.
53
The two researchers are of Indian ethnicity, Suman K. Das and Hari Har P. Cohly. India Today, Sep. 8,
1997, Section: Science, p. 56.
54
Journal of Commerce (India), Aug. 26, 1997, Section: World Trade, p. 3A.
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
India Today, Sep. 8, 1997, Section: Science, p. 56.
58
Journal of Commerce (India), Aug. 26, 1997.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id.
62
Website of Law Journal Extra, http://www.ipww.com/may98/p09_india.html, accessed May 6, 1999.
63
Id.
64
Id.
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
Id.
69
Id.
70
Id.
71
Id.
72
Id.
73
KENWORTHY, LEONARD S., The Story Of Rice, Messner, N.Y. 1979 at 7.
74
Id.
75
Id. at 11.
76
Id.
77
Website of Worchester University, http://www.worc.ac.uk/departs/envman/FieldCourses/RFS/FCRice.html
accessed April 12, 1999.
78
KENWORTHY, at 32.
79
Id. at 35.
80
The Virginian-Pilot, F5, August 6, 1997.
81
Id.
82
Id.
83
FT Asia Intelligence Wire, February 18, 1998.
84
Business Line, Feb. 18, 1998, Section: Business.
85
Business Times (Singapore), Feb. 20, 1998, Section: Business, "India to cntest US firm's patent for basmati
rice.
86
Website of The Economic Times, http://www.economictimes.com/060399/06comm02.htm, accessed May
5, 1999.
87
Id.
88
A metric ton equals 1000 kilograms, approximately 2200 U.S. pounds.
89
Website of The Economic Times, http://www.economictimes.com/060399/06comm02.htm.
90
Id.
91
Id.
92
Id.
93
The Virginian-Pilot, F5, August 6, 1997.
94
Business India, April 20, 1998.
95
Technically, the patent is issued in the name of the inventors, Eugenio S. Sarreal, et al., with their
employer, RiceTec, recorded as the assignee. Almost always, an empoyer holds the complete patent rights to an
employee's inventions.

24
96
The patent is available from the database on the USPTO website, http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='
56 63484'.WKU.&OS=PN/5663484&RS=PN/5663484, accessed May 5, 1999.
97
Website of Business Line, http://www.indiaserver.com/bline/1998/04/25/stories/1425003a.htm, accessed
May 5, 1999.
98
Business India, April 20, 1998.
99
Website of Consulta Juris (Indian Law Firm), http://www.cj-law.com/ptc.htm, accessed May 5, 1999.
100
Id.
101
Id.
102
Id.
103
India Today, Sep. 8, 1997, Section: Science, p. 56.
104
Id.
105
Id.
106
Business Line, Feb. 18, 1998, Section: Business.
107
The Nation (Pakistan), April 9, 1999, available on Westlaw Service at 1999 WL 5870950.
108
Id.
109
Id.
110
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Part 3 Asia-Pacific, February 18, 1998.
111
New Straits Times (Malaysia), April 19, 1998, Section: National, p. 7.
112
Website of Business Line, http://www.indiaserver.com/bline/1998/04/25/stories/1425003a.htm, accessed
May 5, 1999.
113
Id.
114
Business India, April 20, 1998.
115
New Straits Times (Malaysia), April 19, 1998, Section: National, p. 7.
116
Website of Economic Times (India), http://www.economictimes.com/250399/25econ14.htm, accessed May
5, 1999.
117
Business India, April 20, 1998.
118
Id.
119
Website of Economic Times (India), http://www.economictimes.com/170399/17econ04.htm, accessed May
5, 1999.
120
Id.
121
Middle East News Items, September 13, 1998.
122
Id.
123
Website of India IP, http://www.indiaip.com/main/news/basmati_issue.htm, accessed May 5, 1999.
124
Id.
125
Website of Economic Times (India), http://www.economictimes.com/170399/17econ04.htm, accessed May
5, 1999.
126
Id.
127
Id.
128
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Part 3 Asia-Pacific, Aug. 27, 1997, Source: All-India Radio.
129
India Today, Sep. 8, 1997, Section: Science, p. 56.
130
Id.
131
Id.
132
Id.
133
USPTO Website, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/correct.htm, accessed May 7, 1999.
134
Id.
135
New Straits Times (Malaysia), April 19, 1998, Section: National, p. 7.
136
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 25, 1998, p. 12.
137
Website of The Hindustan Times, http://www.hindustantimes.com/ht/nonfrm/230398/demat04.htm,
accessed April 8, 1999.
138
Id.
139
Id.
140
San Antonio Express-News, April 12, 1998, Editorial p. 2, part G.
141
Id.

25
142
Id.
143
Lundberg Family Farms of California also sells its own variety of basmati rice.
http://www.lundberg.com/variety.html, accessed May 7, 1999.
144
The Guardian (London), April 25, 1998, p. 55.
145
Id.
146
Business Line, May 23, 1998, Section: Business.
147
Website of The Times of India, http://www.timesofindia.com/180399/18busi4.htm, accessed April 13,
1999.
148
Id.
149
Id.
150
Id.
151
Id.
152
Id.
153
Id.
154
Id.
155
Id.
156
The Statesman (India), Aug. 28, 1997, Section: News.
157
Bernama (Malaysian National News Agency), Oct. 9, 1998, Section: News.

26